Thomas Morton is described by Cyril Dugmore as a central churchman who had much in common with the Puritans (Dugmore, 1942: 56). For a description of this group of Anglican clergy see the Crakanthorp case study where their beliefs on the Eucharist are summarised.

Morton’s views on the Eucharist are found in his work called Of the Institution of the Sacrament of the Blessed Body and Blood of Christ, by some called the ‘Mass of Christ, Discovering the Superstitions, Sacrilegious and Idolatrous Abominations of the Romish Mass, Together with the Consequent Obstinacies, Overture of Perjuries, and Heresies discernable in the Defenders thereof, published in 1631 (sections of which are printed in Stone, 1909: II, 284-289 and More and Cross, 1935: 473-474). Morton denies transubstantiation and the corporal presence of Christ in the Eucharist as well as maintaining that Christ’s words at the institution of the Lord’s Supper were figurative and not literal. The faithful he argues receive Christ’s body and blood spiritually by faith. These following passages will be used to set out and to assess Morton’s views.

Morton says:

“What necessity there is to inquire into the true sense of these words [This is My body] will best appear in the after examination of the diverse consequences of your own sense, to wit, your doctrine of Transubstantiation, corporal, and material presence, propitiatory sacrifice, and proper adoration. All which are dependants upon your Romish exposition of the former words of Christ. The issue then will be this, that if the words be certainly true in a proper and literal sense, then we are to yield to you the whole cause; but if it be necessarily figurative, then the ground of all these your doctrines being but sandy the whole structure and fabric which you erect thereupon must needs ruin and vanish. But yet know withal that we do not so maintain a figurative sense of Christ His speech concerning His body as to exclude the truth of His body, or yet the truly receiving thereof.” (Morton, Institution of the Sacrament, Book II, chapter i, cited in Stone, 1909: II, 284).

“Ten reasons for proof of the necessity of interpreting the words of Christ figuratively. First, we have been compellable to allow a figurative sense by the confessed analogy of Scripture in all such sacramental speeches of both Testaments. … Secondly, we are challengeable hereunto by our article of faith, which teacheth but one natural body of Christ, and the same to remain now in heaven. Thirdly, we are enforced for fear of such heresies as have followed in other cases upon the literal sense. … Fourthy, we are necessarily moved to reject your literal sense by a confessed impossibility. … Fifthly, we are persuaded hereunto by the former alleged interpretation of the ancient fathers both of the Greek and Latin Church calling the Sacrament a figure, and expounding ‘This is’ by ‘This signifieth’. Sixthly, we are urged by the rule set down by St Augustine for the direction of the whole Catholic Church that, ‘Whensoever the precept’, saith he, ‘seemeth to command that which is heinous’ (as to eat the flesh of Christ) ‘it is figurative. … Seventhly, a motive it must needs be to any reasonable man to defend the figurative sense by observing the misery of your disputers in contending for a literal exposition thereof. … Eightly, your own unreasonableness may persuade somewhat, who have not been able hitherto to confirm any one of your five former objections to the contrary by any one father of the Church. Ninthly, for that the literal interpretation of Christ’s words was the foundation of the heresy of the Capernaites, and hath affinity with divers other ancient heresies condemned by antiquity. Tenthly, our last persuasion is the consent of antiquity against the literal conversion of bread into Christ’s body, which you call Transubstantiation, against the literal corporal presence, against literal corporal eating and union, and against a proper sacrifice of Christ’s body subjectively. All which are fully persuasive inducements to enforce a figurative sense.” (Morton, Institution of the Sacrament, Book II, chapter iii, section 6, cited in Stone, 1909: II, 284-285).

“We, whom you call heretics, believe that the devout communicant, receiving Christ spiritually by faith, is thereby possessed of whole Christ crucified in the inward act of the soul.” (Morton, Institution of the Sacrament, Book I, chapter ii, section 10, cited in Stone, 1909: II, 285).

”There lieth a charge upon every soul that shall communicate and participate of this Sacrament that herein he discern the Lord’s Body; which office of discerning (according to the judgement of Protestants) is not only in the use but also in the nature to distinguish the object of faith from the object of sense. The first object of Christian faith is the Divine alteration and change of natural bread into a Sacrament of Christ’s Body; this we call a Divine change, because none but the same Omnipotent Power that made the creature and element of bread can change it into a Sacrament. The second object of faith is the Body of Christ itself Sacramentally represented and verily exhibited to the faithful communicants. There are then three objects in all to be distinguished. The first is before consecration, the bread merely natural; secondly after consecration, bread Sacramental; thirdly, Christ’s own body, which is spiritual and supersubstantial bread truly exhibited by this Sacrament to the nourishment of the souls of the faithful.” (Morton, Institution of the Sacrament, Book III, chapter i, section 1, cited in More and Cross, 1935: 473).

“There may be observed four kinds of truths of Christ His presence in this Sacrament. One is veritas signi, that is, truth of representation of Christ His Body; the next is vertas revelationis, truth of revelation; the third is veritas obsingnationis, that is, a truth of seal, for better assurance; the last is veritas exhibitionis, the truth of exhibiting and deliverance of the real Body of Christ to the faithful communicants. The truth of the sign in respect of the thing signified is to be acknowledged so far as in the signs of bread and wine is represented the true and real Body and Blood of Christ, which truth and reality is celebrated by us and taught by ancient Fathers in contradiction to Manichees, Marcionites, and other old heretics, who held that Christ had in Himself no true body but merely phantastical. … A second truth and reality in this Sacrament is called veritas revelationis, as it is a sign in respect of the typical signs of the same Body and Blood of Christ in the rites of the Old Testament, yet not absolutely in respect of the matter itself but of the manner, because the faithful under the Law had the same faith in Christ, and therefore their Sacraments had relation to the same Body and Blood of Christ, but in a different manner. … As, therefore, the truth of history is held to be more real than the truth of prophecy because it is a declaration of a real performance of that which was promised, so the evangelical Sacrament may be said to contain in it a more real verity than the Levitical. … Besides the former two, there is veritas obsignationis, a truth sealed, which makes this Sacrament more than a sign, even a seal of God’s promises in Christ. … A fourth reason to be observed herein, as more special, is veritas exhibitionis, a truth exhibiting and delivering to the faithful communicants the thing signified and sealed. … Vain therefore is the objection made by your Cardinal [Bellarmine] in urging us with the testimony of Athanasius to prove that Christ His body is exhibited to the receivers as though there were not a truth in a mystical and Sacramental deliverance of Christ His body except it were by a corporal and material presence thereof; which is a transparent falsity, as any may perceive by any deed of gift which by writing, seal, and delivery conveyeth any land or possession from man to man, yet this far more effectually.” (Morton, Institution of the Sacrament, Book IV, chapter i, section 2, cited in More and Cross, 1935: 473-474).

“A Christian man consisteth of two parts, the outward or bodily, and the inward, which is spiritual, this Sacrament accordingly consisteth of two parts, earthly and heavenly, as Irenaeus spake of the bodily elements of bread and wine as the visibile signs and objects of sense, and of the body and blood of Christ, which is the spiritual part. Answerable to both these is the double nourishment and union of a Christian, the one sacramental by communicating of the outward elements of bread and wine united to man’s body in his taking, eating, digesting, till at length it be transubstantiated into him by being substantially incorporated into his flesh. The other, which is the spiritual and soul’s food, is the body and blood of the Lord (therefore called spiritual because it is the object of faith) by a union wrought by God’s Spirit and man’s faith, which (as hath been professed by Protestants) is most real and ineffable.” (Morton, Institution of the Sacrament, Book V, chapter i, section 1, cited in Stone, 1909: II, 287).

“All our premised sections throughout this fifth book do clearly make up this conclusion that the body of Christ which Protestants do feed upon as their soul’s food is the body of Christ once crucified and now sitting in glorious majesty in heaven; and that body of Christ believed by you is of corporal eating indeed and in truth of bread. … Wherefore let every Christian study with sincere conscience to eat the flesh of Christ with a spiritual appetite as his soul’s food, thereby to have a spiritual union with Him proper to the faithful, not subject to vomitings or corruption and not common to wicked men and vile beasts, but always working to the salvation of the true receivers: so shall he abhor all your Capernaitical fancies.” (Morton, Institution of the Sacrament, Book V, chapter ix, section 4. cited in Stone, 1909: II, 287).

In his discussion of sacrifice Morton denies that the Eucharist is a ‘proper sacrifice’ since a ‘proper sacrifice’ must involve destruction. Like Crakanthorp he misunderstands the teaching of the Council of Trent on eucharistic sacrifice. He argues that any sacrifice which is propitiatory must be propitious in itself. Despite this he does admit that there is a spiritual and commemorative sacrifice in the Eucharist, whereby there is a representation and application of the sacrifice of the cross. He says regarding sacrifice:

“Every proper sacrifice is properly visible, of profane is made sacred, and properly suffereth destruction. (This is your own proposition in each part.) But the body of Christ in the Eucharist is neither properly visible, nor properly of profane made sacred, nor suffereth any destruction. (This is your own assumption.) Therefore the body of Christ in this Sacrament is not a proper sacrifice nor properly sacrificed. This (except men have lost their brains) must needs be every man’s conclusion. And that much the rather because it cannot be sufficient that Christ’s body be present in the Eucharist to make it a sacrifice without some sacrificing act. A sheep is no sacrifice whilst it remaineth in the fold, nor can every action serve the turn except it be a destructive act; for the sheep does not become therefore a sacrifice because it is shorn, nor yet can any destructive act be held sacrificing which is not prescribed by divine authority, which can only ordain a sacrifice, as hath been confessed. But no such divine ordinance hath hitherto been proved.” (Morton, Institution of the Sacrament, Book VI, chapter vi, section 3, cited in Stone, 1909: II, 287-288).

“Protestants in their celebration profess four sorts of sacrifices. For proof hereof we may instance in our Church of England, most happily reformed and established. First, the sacrifice of mortification in act, and of martyrdom in vow, saying, ‘We offer unto Thee, O Lord, ourselves, our souls and bodies, to be a holy, lively, and reasonable sacrifice unto Thee’. Next, a sacrifice Eucharistical, saying, ‘We desire Thy fatherly goodness mercifully to accept of our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving’. … Thirdly, a sacrifice latreutical, that it, of divine worship, saying, ‘And although we be unworthy to offer up any sacrifice, yet we beseech Thee to accept of our bounden duty and service’. This performance of our bounden service is that which ancient fathers called an unbloody sacrifice.” (Morton, Institution of the Sacrament, Book VI, chapter vii, section 3, cited in Stone, 1909: II, 288).

“Now we come to the last, most true, and necessary point, which is the body and blood as the object of our commemoration. Still, still do you urge the saying of the fathers where they affirm that we offer unto God the same body and blood of Christ on the altar, even the same which was sacrificed on the cross, which therefore you interpret as being the same subject matter of our commemoration. … We as instantly, and more truly, proclaim that we offer (commemoratively) the same, undoubtedly the very same body and blood of Christ His all-sufficient sacrifice on the cross, although not as the subject of His proper sacrifice, but yet as the only adequate object of our commemoration. … It will be easy for us to discern the subject sacrifice of Christ from ours, His being the real sacrifice on the cross, ours only the sacramental representation, commemoration and application thereof.” (Morton, Institution of the Sacrament, Book VI, chapter vii, section 4, cited in Stone, 1909: II, 288).

“First. Although the whole act of our celebration is commemoration of Christ’s death as proceeding from us be a sacrifice propitious, as other holy acts of devotion, only by God’s complacency and acceptance, yet the object of our commemoration being the death and passion of Christ in His body and blood to us, by the efficacy thereof, a truly and properly propitiatory sacrifice and satisfaction for a perfect remission of all sins. Thus concerning Protestants. As for you, if we consider your own outward acts of celebration (where in ten circumstances we find ten transgressions of the institution of Christ, and therefore provocatory to stir up God’s displeasure), we think not that it can be propitiatory so much as by way of God’s acceptance. Next, when we dive into the mystery of your Mass, to seek out the subject matter of your sacrifice in the hands of your priest, which according to the faith of your Church is called a proper propitiatory sacrifice in itself, it hath been found (besides our proofs from Scriptures and your own principles) by ten demonstrations out of ancient fathers to be sacramental bread and wine, and not the body and blood of Christ. Wherefore the subject of your sacrifice can be nor more properly (that is, satisfactorily) in itself propitiatory than natural bread can be Christ.” (Morton, Institution of the Sacrament, Book VI, chapter xii, section 2, cited in Stone, 1909: II, 288-289).

Morton repudiates any idea that the difference between the Church of England and the Church of Rome in the matter of the Eucharist, relates only to the manner of the presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist. He says:

“It would be a wonder to us to hear any of our own profession to be so extremely indifferent concerning the different opinions of the manner of the Presence of Christ’s Body in the Sacrament as to think the Romish sect therefore either tolerable or reconcilable, upon pretence that the question is only de modo, that is, of the manner of being, and that consequently all controversy about this is but vain jangling. Such an one ought to enter into his own second thoughts, to consider the necessity that lieth upon every Christian to abandon divers heresies, albeit their differences from the orthodox profession were only de modo. … That the Romish manner of eating Christ His Body is Capernaitical; her manner of sacrifice sacrilegious; he manner of Divine adoration thereof idolatrous; and all these manner irreconcilable to the manner of our Church, is copiously declared in the books following.” (Morton, Institution of the Sacrament, Book VI, chapter xii, section 2, cited in More and Cross, 1935: 474).

Morton clearly denies any immoderate notions of both Christ’s presence and sacrifice in the Eucharist. In relation to the presence of Christ in the Eucharist he argues firstly for a figurative model of presence which is opposed to any natural or corporal model of presence (that is, an immoderate sense). In the passage from Institution of the Sacrament quoted from Book II, chapter iii, section 6, Morton goes so far as to say that in the words of Christ, “This is My body”, “This is”, must be taken to mean, “This signifieth”. This suggests a Zwinglian interpretation (see Zwingli, Works, ii, 209, cited in Stone, 1909: II, 40, where Zwingli argues that ‘is’ is used in Scripture in the sense of ‘signifies’; and Zwingli, Letter to Matthew Alber Concerning the Lord’s Supper, ed. Pipkin, 1984: II, 139, where Zwingli presents the same argument). This means that there can be no givenness of gift in the bread and wine, but merely a bare sign of a past event. Morton seems here to be in agreement with Zwingli who says in another place, “to eat the body of Christ sacramentally is to eat the body of Christ with the heart and mind in conjunction with the sacrament.” (Zwingli, An Exposition of the Faith, edn. Bromiley, 1953: 258). Taken in this way then, Morton is presenting a nominalist conception in regard to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, whereby sign and signified have no real relationship to one another, other than signification. Morton does not deny the “receiving of Christ spiritually by faith” (Morton, Institution of the Sacrament, Book I, chapter ii, section 10) but states that the devout communicant is “possessed of whole Christ crucified in the inward act of the soul” (Morton, Institution of the Sacrament, Book I, chapter ii, section 10). This suggests that the presence of Christ has little or nothing to do with the outward signs of bread and wine and that the reception of Christ is a purely spiritual act. It also seems to coincide with the views of Zwingli. There seems to be a definite nominalist separation of sign and signified. The idea of any change in the bread and wine is limited to a sacramental use, whereby the elements are set aside for a the sacred sacramental purpose of signifying Christ’s body and blood (Morton, Institution of the Sacrament, Book III, chapter i, section 1). There is no suggestion of an instantiation of a real presence of Christ in the Eucharist or in the elements, only a spiritual exhibition of Christ’ body. It is concluded therefore in relation to this first set of quotes from Morton, that he takes a nominalist view of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, separating the bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ into self-contained entities.

In another set of quotes however, Morton seems to express a moderate realism in relation to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist (Morton, Institution of the Sacrament, Book IV, chapter i, section 2). Here Morton argues for four kinds of truth in relation to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist: sign, revelation, seal and exhibition. In regard to sign he says, “in the signs of bread and wine is represented the true and real Body and Blood of Christ”. In relation to exhibition he says, “a truth exhibiting and delivering to the faithful communicants the thing signified and sealed”. Here the signs of bread and wine are given much higher status, purpose and presence, than they were in the previous quotations. Not only are the bread and wine a sign of Christ’s body and blood, but they also exhibit and deliver it to the communicant. This is clear indication that Morton sees the gift of Christ’s body and blood as being given by the bread and wine. He confirms this in another work, entitled, A Catholic Appeal for Protestants, where he says, “the gift is His precious body and blood … conveyed unto mankind by the word and sacrament, as by a visible deed of gift under the signs and seals of common elements of bread and wine, consecrated to that use.” (Morton, A Catholic Appeal for Protestants, II, ii, 28, cited in Dugmore, 1942: 57). These are clearly expressions of a moderate realism in relation to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, where the body and blood of Christ is instantiated in the bread and wine of the Eucharist in a moderate fashion. Morton is careful to avoid any immoderate realism though, since in another place he argues that the inward part of the sacrament, the body and blood of Christ, is spiritual, thereby denying any corporal (immoderate) presence (Morton, Institution of the Sacrament, Book V, chapter i, section 1).

It is interesting to note that at this last place, when he speaks of the bodily eating of bread in the Eucharist, he describes it as being transubstantiated into the person by being substantially incorporated into the person’s flesh. Transubstantiation here relates to the outward sign and the communicant and not to the outward sign and the substance of the body and blood of Christ.

Clearly there is some lack of consistency in Morton’s treatment of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This tendency is confirmed by Cyril Dugmore who refers to the group he terms central churchmen, including Morton, as having thoughts which were confused and divergent (Dugmore, 1942: 68). This must be seen to limit the value of this contribution to the Anglican eucharistic tradition, although Dugmore seems to argue that the influence of people such as Morton, was a mediating influence which would bear much fruit in the days to come (Dugmore, 1942: 68). Perhaps at times Morton was distracted by the power of the polemic against the Church of Rome, a church with which he sees no opportunity of toleration and reconciliation (Morton, Institution of the Sacrament, Book VI, chapter xii, section 1).

The writings of Morton on eucharistic sacrifice are more of a unity than his writings on eucharistic presence. When he speaks of sacrifice and the Eucharist, he argues for a moderate realist view. He denies any immoderate form of eucharistic sacrifice, such as a propitiatory sacrifice in the Eucharist (Morton, Institution of the Sacrament, Book VI, chapter vii, section 3). Clearly though he argues for “a sacrifice Eucharistical” (Morton, Institution of the Sacrament, Book VI, chapter vii, section 3). By this eucharistic sacrifice Morton means more than just remembering. He states the offering is commemorative, that is, a “sacramental representation, commemoration and application” of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross (Morton, Institution of the Sacrament, Book VI, chapter vii, section 4). This coincides with what is considered to be a moderate realist view of eucharistic sacrifice.